Without a law: French government can block social networks

France's prime minister may also order the complete blocking of social networks beyond the legal basis if there are “exceptional circumstances”. This is what the country's highest administrative court, the Conseil d'État, said in a recent ruling. However, the Conseil d'État subsequently lifted a ban imposed on the Chinese video service TikTok in the colony of New Caledonia from May 14 to 29, 2024, because the government did not comply with one of three conditions when issuing its censorship order.

Under “exceptional circumstances”, the Prime Minister may force network operators to impose a complete block if this is indispensable considering particularly serious events, if less severe measures are not immediately available and if the block is limited to the time required to investigate and take alternative measures, if necessary in cooperation with the operator of the respective social network.

The complete blocking of TikTok in New Caledonia was imposed in May 2024 by the then French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. He justified his blocking order with unrest in the colony, which was being fueled by TikTok videos. However, the censorship order was not limited to the time required to take alternative measures. For this reason, the Supreme Court subsequently classifies the TikTok block as unlawful. Without this error, the blocking order would have been permissible. The French League for Human Rights, the civil rights organization La Quadratur du Net and several affected citizens brought the case.

No legal basis

There is no legal basis for censorship of the kind ordered in New Caledonia. An emergency law from 1955 (55-385) allows the Minister of the Interior to prevent communication that incites or condones terrorism in the event of a declared state of emergency. However, this was indisputably not the issue at TikTok. And neither the government nor the judges have found a legal basis in droit commun (common law).

According to the court decision, however, this is irrelevant. The judges fall back on a “theory of exceptional circumstances” (circonstances exceptionnelles) developed during the First World War. In doing so, they explicitly justify exceeding the legal powers.

La Quadrature du Net argued in the proceedings that restrictions on the right to express opinions are only permissible based on laws. The civil rights activists referred to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Conseil d'État brushes this aside in a few words: the fact that the Prime Minister is allowed to exceed his normal powers is based on “established case law”, which is not specified in the ruling. This creates a “sufficiently foreseeable legal basis” for the chosen interpretation and application of the fundamental rights provisions.

• The decision of the Conseil d'État of April 1, 2025, bears the case numbers 494511, 494583 and 495174.

(ds)